refresh_faf

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses re-reading and re-scoring but does not mention side effects (e.g., does it modify any state?), required permissions, or rate limits. The phrase 'Built for Grok, by request' adds no behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences cover purpose, usage flow, and note. The first two sentences are informative; the third ('Built for Grok, by request') is peripheral. Overall concise but not maximally efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description mentions returning 'fresh context' and drift delta, which suffices for a re-grounding tool. It explains both parameters and the session workflow. Lacks specifics on return format but enough for most agents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: 'baseline' is already described as last-known score for drift, and 'path' as project directory. Per guidelines, baseline is 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool re-reads and re-scores the .faf, reports drift vs last-known score, and returns fresh context. It explicitly uses the verb 're-ground' and distinguishes from siblings like faf_read and faf_score by positioning itself as a 're-grounding primitive' for long sessions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage in long sessions where drift occurred ('drift → refresh → re-grounded') and mentions the optional 'baseline' parameter for drift reporting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or specific alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.